ZAHN: Joining me now to debate this Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education. She joins us from San Francisco tonight. And from Cincinnati, Jason Lisle. He has a Ph.D. in astrophysics and works with a pro-creationism group called Answers in Genesis.

Welcome, both of you.

Jason, let's start with you tonight. If you were to teach creationism in a classroom, what would you teach?

JASON LISLE, ANSWERS IN GENESIS: Well, I would show that the scientific evidence, when you understand it, is consistent with what the Bible has to say about creation.

If I had the -- if I had the legal right to talk about the Bible, I would use that. If I didn't, I would at least show that the evidence is consistent with there being a creator with design.

For example, we see created kinds -- we see different kinds of organisms in the world and we see them reproducing after their kinds. We don't see one kind of organism turning into other kind of organism. That's not something that we actually observe in nature. And that's something that evolution -- evolutionists say is required.

ZAHN: So Eugenie, how would you explain that?

EUGENIE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION: Well, hearing a creationist define evolution is a little bit like having Madeline Murray O'Hare define Christianity. You're not really going to get the -- the straight story there.

The way evolution is taught at the university level is the way it should be taught at the high school level. And that's really what we're talking about here. It's not between evolution and science.

ZAHN: What do you mean by that?

SCOTT: At the university level, which is where I used to teach, we teach evolution, biological evolution, as the inference that living things had common ancestors. And we teach it neutrally. We don't teach it that God did it or God had nothing to do with it. We just present the science.

And that's what should be done at the high school level.

ZAHN: Jason, I want to share with you a result from the latest CBS/"New York Times" poll, which show that 65 percent of those people polled were in favor of teaching both creation and evolution in public school classrooms. Do you appreciate these numbers?

LISLE: I do. I think that a lot of people realize that it would be very smart to teach both creation and evolution if that were possible. Because...

ZAHN: So you don't have a problem with both being taught side by side?

LISLE: Not at all. In fact I encourage people to actually teach evolution. But teach it warts and all. Show the problems with it, as well, and then show what the creationist interpretation of the evidence is. Because we feel that the creationist interpretation of the evidence makes a lot more sense when you understand it.

ZAHN: What about the argument Eugenie made that you can teach it in a more neutral way, and I'll let you expand on that in a moment, Eugenie?

SCOTT: Thank you.

LISLE: Well, there's no neutral ground, is there? I mean, you're ultimately either for what God has said as word or against it. And that's what the real issue is here.

ZAHN: Eugenie?

SCOTT: No, we're treating this as if there are two alternatives, evolution, and the institute, or the answers in Genesis' version of creation.

But you know, his version of creation, which is everything was created all at one time in six days, 10,000 years ago, is not what Catholics believe. It's not what Episcopalians believe, and it's certainly not what Hopi believe or what Navajo believes. So you can't say teach both, because there's more than two alternatives.

Now my view, the view that the National Center for Science Education takes, is that we should know more about a lot of creationisms, plural. But it has no place in science class. I think comparative religion is a wonderful study, and we should be more theologically literate than we are. But keep it out of science class, because it is not scientifically demonstrable.

ZAHN: So Jason, would you support the idea of moving that into a religion class?

LISLE: I have no problem with creation, evolution being taught in a religion class, as well. But it would be nice if the scientific aspects of the creation models, just the idea that there is an intelligent creator, would be brought up in a science classroom.

There's scientific evidence supporting that position. I mean, is the evolution model so weak that its adherents feel the need to suppress any alternatives?

SCOTT: I don't think it's a matter of...

ZAHN: Eugenie, there's a lot of, you know, strong words that are used when it comes to this debate that creationism is actually being censored out of the curriculum.

SCOTT: Of course. It's being censored out of the science curriculum, because, contrary to the claims that have just been made, there are no scientific data supporting it.

Look, the fact of the matter is that science is not a fair process. I mean, it's not a democratic system. The creationists have the same right that I have to make their position to the scientific community and convince them that there is evidence supporting the idea that everything was created all at one time. The problem is, there are no data. They haven't made the case. But what they want to do is make an end-run around the scientific community and go directly to the school district, as opposed to the normal process of having these ideas filter down from the scientific community.

You know, the thing is, scientists and teachers aren't trying to get creationism into this -- into the curriculum. It's the politicians. And what this has done is politicize science education in a very negative fashion.

ZAHN: Well, Jason's a scientist. He's trying to get it into the curriculum.

LISLE: But see, I find it interesting that evolutionists would try to use political pressure to suppress certain ideas. For example Russ Humphries, he's a Ph.D. nuclear physicist, and he has a model of how magnetic fields work. It's based on their being created 6,000 years ago. And he's able to actually predict the magnetic fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune based on creation.

And yet, most students will never hear about that, because we're not allowed.

SCOTT: And there's -- and there's a very good reason for that.

ZAHN: All right, Eugenie, you get the last word tonight in the debate. The very good reason for that is what, Eugenie?

SCOTT: The very good reason for that is that he has to fool around with some constants that completely violate the laws of physics, which is why these arguments are not made in the scientific literature. They're made -- they're made politically at the local school board. And that's not the place for them.

ZAHN: My pleasure. Part of the television evolution has been the rise of a series called reality TV. But you've never seen it quite like this. "The Apprentice" with politics, but without the Donald, when we come back.

cite (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/29/pzn.01.html) It's almost at the bottom of the page.

Skeptic

December 7th, 2004, 04:30 AM

Scott made a good point: Make your argument to the scientific community, before trying to teach it in high school science classes. If a theory stands up to scientific scrutiny by the scientific community, then it can filter down to the science class room. Don't skip the scientific scrutiny, then try to teach some form of creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution.

Nineveh

December 7th, 2004, 08:33 AM

Septic,
Do you still believe it should be ok for people to marry animals?

aharvey

December 7th, 2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Nineveh

Septic,
Do you still believe it should be ok for people to marry animals?

Now there's a world-class non sequitur!

Here's the kicker:

"Jason, let's start with you tonight. If you were to teach creationism in a classroom, what would you teach?

JASON LISLE, ANSWERS IN GENESIS: Well, I would show that the scientific evidence, when you understand it, is consistent with what the Bible has to say about creation."

Forget the fact that this is not even an accurate statement. To say a piece of evidence "is consistent with" a particular hypothesis means nothing more than it is possible to frame that evidence in such a way that it does not actively contradict the hypothesis. It doesn't mean that the hypothesis would in any way predict the evidence. It doesn't mean the evidence in any way supports the hypothesis. It is the very weakest relationship between evidence and hypothesis.

Not only that, but YEC's employ this "standard" on an item-by-item basis, which sets them up for some major contradictions. I'm convinced this is one reason YECs refuse to put together a formal model, with specific premises, assumptions, and predictions. I have to dig out my copy of Woodmorappe's hilarious book Noah's Ark: a study in impracticality (okay, that's what it should have been called!) for a particularly nice example of this.

Meanwhile, I'm still eagerly awaiting some specific guidance on what I should be teaching my students about creationism.

Nineveh

December 7th, 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by aharvey

Now there's a world-class non sequitur!

Not really. See, I don't like carrying on convos with people who are insane. Septic once said he thought it was a keen idea for people to marry animals. Now, if that's who you like to converse with, have it. I'll pass.

Nineveh

December 7th, 2004, 12:45 PM

The real "kicker" is the open letter that will prolly never be addressed by Scott:

Dr. Humphrey’s letter to Dr. Scott

Hi NCSE folks:

Please relay this to Dr. Scott. Having watched her talk about my theory of planetary magnetic fields on the Paula Zahn show tonight, I’m mildly curious as to which “physical constants” she is alleging that my theory changed in making the predictions Jason Lisle mentioned. Would she please specify them? Has she even read the Creation Research Society Quarterly article in which I made those predictions?23

By the way, I thought Dr. Lisle won the debate. He looked sharp and well-informed, which he is.

Hoping to get Genie up to speed,

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph. D.
Institute for Creation Research

cite (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1201debate.asp)

Skeptic

December 7th, 2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Nineveh

Septic once said he thought it was a keen idea for people to marry animals. Documentation please.

Nineveh

December 7th, 2004, 05:52 PM

Oh please, I asked you twice because impurex thought you were joking.

Skeptic

December 7th, 2004, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Nineveh

Oh please, I asked you twice because impurex thought you were joking. What did you ask and how did I respond? My memory isn't what it used to be.

Nineveh

December 7th, 2004, 07:21 PM

It's easy to settle, do you think it's ok for humans to "marry" animals, or have "relations" with them? I certainly hope you have changed your mind on it, so here is the opportunity to set the record straight :)

Skeptic

December 7th, 2004, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Nineveh

It's easy to settle, do you think it's ok for humans to "marry" animals, or have "relations" with them? I certainly hope you have changed your mind on it, so here is the opportunity to set the record straight :) I don't think it is a "keen idea" for humans to "marry" animals. I think it is a pretty silly idea. Would I advocate a law against a rare and silly thing like that? Probably not. Is it "ok"? That's a silly moral judgment that each individual human should make for themselves.

As for "relations" with animals, people have been doing this for thousands of years. Does this make it right? No. Is it wrong? It depends on whose moral principles you want to follow. The moral principles contained in the Bible are not necessarily absolute principles dictated by God. Biblical principles are as much a product of human invention as any others. I don't advocate for "relations" with animals. Would I advocate a law against a rare and silly thing like that? Probably not. Is it "ok"? That's a silly moral judgment that each individual human should make for themselves.

It's funny how so-called moral people can think it is "ok" to slaughter animals, hunt them in different ways, eat them, torture them in order to make safe cosmetics, force them as slaves to do our work, and have them as pets. But when it comes to those rare and outrageous times when some idiot wants to have "relations" with them, ...... oh, my!!! :shocked:

Lighthouse

December 8th, 2004, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic

I don't think it is a "keen idea" for humans to "marry" animals. I think it is a pretty silly idea... Is it "ok"? That's a silly moral judgment that each individual human should make for themselves.

As for "relations" with animals, people have been doing this for thousands of years... Is it wrong? It depends on whose moral principles you want to follow. I don't advocate for "relations" with animals... Is it "ok"? That's a silly moral judgment that each individual human should make for themselves.
:vomit:

It's funny how so-called moral people can think it is "ok" to slaughter animals, hunt them in different ways, eat them, torture them in order to make safe cosmetics, force them as slaves to do our work, and have them as pets. But when it comes to those rare and outrageous times when some idiot wants to have "relations" with them, ...... oh, my!!! :shocked:
I don't think it's okay to test make up on animals. But I'm definitely a meat eater!:firechyld

Nineveh

December 8th, 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
Would I advocate a law against a rare and silly thing like that? Probably not.

Does this mean you do not support upholding the law already on the books, or work to have the ones in place removed?

Is it "ok"? That's a silly moral judgment that each individual human should make for themselves.

Silly or not, you don't seem to have changed your ideas on it. That's too bad.

As for "relations" with animals, people have been doing this for thousands of years. Does this make it right? No. Is it wrong? It depends on whose moral principles you want to follow. The moral principles contained in the Bible are not necessarily absolute principles dictated by God. Biblical principles are as much a product of human invention as any others. I don't advocate for "relations" with animals. Would I advocate a law against a rare and silly thing like that? Probably not. Is it "ok"? That's a silly moral judgment that each individual human should make for themselves.

We just went through that once in your first paragraph. What do you say? Do you think the one person who opts to take advantage of a goat is "ok" in your book?

Turbo

December 8th, 2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

I don't think it's okay to test make up on animals. Why not?

What alternative do you support?

Lighthouse

December 9th, 2004, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Turbo

Why not?

What alternative do you support?
Human testing. Humans can consent. Animals can't. One of the reasons I'm against people marrying animals.

Turbo

December 9th, 2004, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Human testing. Humans can consent. Animals can't. Animals don't consent to be killed, and eaten, or even penned for that matter. But you aren't a vegetarian, are you?

philosophizer

December 9th, 2004, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Turbo

Why not?

Because they just don't look very good with make-up on. ;)

philosophizer

December 9th, 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by philosophizer

Because they just don't look very good with make-up on. ;)

But, then, maybe Skeptic thinks otherwise.

Turbo

December 9th, 2004, 02:15 PM

:chuckle:

Nineveh

December 9th, 2004, 03:50 PM

Now, now Philo.... septic hasn't actually said it's "ok" for people to have relations with animals yet, let's wait until his tap dance comes to an end and we get a clear understanding of what he does think :)

(see...harve? I'm even trying to give your evo buddy a break here...)

Lighthouse

December 10th, 2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Turbo

Animals don't consent to be killed, and eaten, or even penned for that matter. But you aren't a vegetarian, are you?
Well, in order to eat them, they are killed on purpose. Testing make up on them kills them without purpose, and then, because of the chemicals, they aren't even edible! What a waste.:nono:

Turbo

December 10th, 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Well, in order to eat them, they are killed on purpose. Testing make up on them kills them without purpose, and then, because of the chemicals, they aren't even edible! What a waste.:nono: If the testing is instead done on humans, some humans will get sick and/or die. Wouldn't it we wiser to put animals at risk than humans?

Skeptic

December 10th, 2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Nineveh

Now, now Philo.... septic hasn't actually said it's "ok" for people to have relations with animals yet, let's wait until his tap dance comes to an end and we get a clear understanding of what he does think Saying something is "ok" is like an endorsement. I do not endorse "relations" with animals. Generally, I would recommend against it for health reasons. I do not, however, think such "relations" are a sin, because I don't think anything is a sin. Religious folks believe in sin. As I've said, I don't believe in any religious dogma or moral absolutes, such as those found that collection of fairy tales and superstitions called the Bible. All moral principles are human constructions derived from the human condition.

BTW, I've been a vegetarian for 30 years.

Lighthouse

December 11th, 2004, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Turbo

If the testing is instead done on humans, some humans will get sick and/or die. Wouldn't it we wiser to put animals at risk than humans?
No. I don't eat humans.

Turbo

December 11th, 2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

No. I don't eat humans. You don't eat rats either. It's not like animal testing is causing a meat shortage. And even if it were, that's no excuse to start killing humans instead.

Why are you more willing to endanger humans than animals? Why, when given the choice to endanger a human or an animal, do you opt to endanger the human?

Nineveh

December 11th, 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

Saying something is "ok" is like an endorsement. I do not endorse "relations" with animals. Generally, I would recommend against it for health reasons.

I asked what you thought about it. If you met someone who told you they liked their goat, a-lot, you would tell them the health risks and they really shouldn't be engaging in that practice for that reason? Do I have this correct?

BTW, I've been a vegetarian for 30 years.

So?

Skeptic

December 11th, 2004, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Nineveh

I asked what you thought about it. If you met someone who told you they liked their goat, a-lot, you would tell them the health risks and they really shouldn't be engaging in that practice for that reason? Do I have this correct? That is correct.

What do I think about it? I think it is a silly and foolish practice. But I do not object to it on moral grounds. There are plenty of other things I can object to on moral (not absolute) grounds, like murder, rape, stealing, or doing other physical or psychological harm. If people choose to have "relations" with animals, I will not tell them it is immoral, any more than that smoking cigarettes is immoral. Getting it on with animals can be unhealthy, just like smoking cigarettes can be unhealthy. However, smoking cigarettes is probably worse for one's health.

So? Just wanted to let you know that I probably have more respect for animals than most.

Lighthouse

December 12th, 2004, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Turbo

You don't eat rats either. It's not like animal testing is causing a meat shortage. And even if it were, that's no excuse to start killing humans instead.

Why are you more willing to endanger humans than animals? Why, when given the choice to endanger a human or an animal, do you opt to endanger the human?
My only stance is that animals can consent, knowing full well the dangers. But if science wants to test on street rats, then all power to them.

jjjg

December 12th, 2004, 10:37 PM

I think you guys are way off the original topic.

Lighthouse

December 12th, 2004, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by jjjg

I think you guys are way off the original topic.
Who? Me and Turbo?:eek:

jjjg

December 13th, 2004, 12:30 AM

Whoever got into the animal marriage thing.

aharvey

December 13th, 2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by jjjg

I think you guys are way off the original topic.

Boy, you're not kidding! But on the other hand, it does seem to be a convenient way to bury the rather more relevant question of what, exactly, a curriculum containing alternatives to evolution should include!

Nineveh

December 13th, 2004, 09:31 AM

I wanted to know where spetic stood on the issue.

As far as the interview, read it, read it again... read it a third time. It isn't going to change any. But for those who feel this thread should only focus on the interview.... there is an open letter to Scott about her misrepresentation of Dr. Humphrey's work:

Dr. Humphrey’s letter to Dr. Scott

Hi NCSE folks:

Please relay this to Dr. Scott. Having watched her talk about my theory of planetary magnetic fields on the Paula Zahn show tonight, I’m mildly curious as to which “physical constants” she is alleging that my theory changed in making the predictions Jason Lisle mentioned. Would she please specify them? Has she even read the Creation Research Society Quarterly article in which I made those predictions?23

By the way, I thought Dr. Lisle won the debate. He looked sharp and well-informed, which he is.

Hoping to get Genie up to speed,

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph. D.
Institute for Creation Research

cite (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1201debate.asp)

I won't hold my breath waiting for her to reply...

Stratnerd

December 13th, 2004, 10:37 AM

Thing is creationists' predictions have been falsified so thoroughly it doesn't matter if you find some data consistent with it. If you look you can find some data consistent with any theory.

But that ain't doing science!

jjjg

December 13th, 2004, 01:33 PM

Questions of God or even materialism are metaphysical questions. They are philisophical arguments based on what we can learn from physical science but they are not part of physical science.

jjjg

December 13th, 2004, 01:35 PM

That being said, certain aspects like the world being created in 6 literal days has been falsified.

Hey, Nin, I thought you were disgusted with the so-called reliance of the evolutionary view on "woulda coulda shoulda"? So how come you keep citing a paper whose abstract begins with "God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a very simple way:...", and continues with "could haves" and "would haves" throughout? [Added: just so you know, Humphreys uses 13 "could"s and 31 "would"s in this short paper to explain his ideas].

And ends with "This theory is consistent with all the known data and explains many facts which have puzzled evolutionists." ! Thus, this paper only supports the argument that I and others here have made that even the best creationist "science" can do is claim "consistency" (i.e., lack of overt contradiction).

The validity of his assumptions, calculations, and assertions is another issue altogether, but even if we grant every one of these (questionable!) claims, though, we still have nothing more than "coulda woulda shoulda" (which I thought was unacceptable to y'all) leading to lack of overt contradiction (which, again, is the weakest form of scientific support). Lack of overt contradiction (i.e., "consistency") has many potential causes besides a correct model, such as a limited number of comparisons or a vaguely worded model.

One Eyed Jack

December 14th, 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by jjjg

Nin, how does this theory you posted explain that their has been reversals in the magnetic poles in the Earth's history that are accurately measured in the tens of thousands of years?

How do you know these measurements are accurate?

Stratnerd

December 14th, 2004, 12:16 PM

Like evolution, for example.

maybe you have an example where evolution has been falsified?

jjjg

December 14th, 2004, 01:37 PM

Because we know the decay rate of radioactive isotopes within the rocks.

Nineveh

December 14th, 2004, 02:00 PM

I posted it so folks who might be interested in what Dr. Humphreys has to say would have the info. Is there a problem with that?

Lighthouse

December 14th, 2004, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Stratnerd

maybe you have an example where evolution has been falsified?
It'll be posted when you post an example of evolution being empirically proven.

One Eyed Jack

December 14th, 2004, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by jjjg

Because we know the decay rate of radioactive isotopes within the rocks.

How do you know what the ratio of parent to daughter material was when the rock first solidified? Without knowing that, you can't use the decay rate to extrapolate the rock's age.

What do you mean by "human" (you would have to know this in order to proclaim something to be "non-human," right?)? Being in the species Homo sapiens? Being in the genus Homo?

If DNA showed NM to be "non-human," did it indicate what NM was instead?

And how does any of this add up to "evolution fails"? Why would "evolution" require that NM be "human," whatever that means?

aharvey

December 15th, 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

[Originally posted by Stratnerd

maybe you have an example where evolution has been falsified?]

It'll be posted when you post an example of evolution being empirically proven.

Lighthouse, you mistyped "No I don't, but it doesn't matter because the Truth has been revealed to me."

Come on, admit it. For one thing, what do you even mean by "empirically proven"? Or "proven," for that matter? Surely you know that "proof" is the domain of mathematics, not science. And since you are no doubt following the creationist's misuse of the term "evolution" to mean something like "protocell to human," you know that it would be theoretically impossible to "empirically prove" something like that anyway.

And that's fine, you are more than welcome to your beliefs, but please don't try to bring them into a science class unless you're going to have the science to back them up!

this post makes no sense or you just don't understand evolution, human evolution, or science or all the above.

Falsification involves prediction. Prediction is an explicit statement of a hypothesis regarding an outcome based on theoretical components.

So if evolution were true then Neanderthals = modern humans? That doesn't make any sense. If evolution is descent with modification then why would we expect Neanderthals = modern humans?

The DNA studies you were referring to (I'm assuming) are those that show that modern humans were not direct descendents of Neanderthal man. I fail to see how this falsifies evolution. Please enlighten.

Stratnerd

December 15th, 2004, 02:34 PM

lighthouse,

Evolution can be emperically proven in the sense we can show in a lab that descent with modification occurs.

If you are talking about the historical aspects of evolution then emperical evidence is impossible (as is any other historical study) but you can generate testable hypotheses.

aharvey

December 15th, 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

How do you know what the ratio of parent to daughter material was when the rock first solidified? Without knowing that, you can't use the decay rate to extrapolate the rock's age.

Given the tens of thousands of times (conservatively!) that geologists have used radiometric dating, you'd think that such an obvious and elementary point would have occurred to at least one of them!

Caine

December 15th, 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by jjjg

Questions of God or even materialism are metaphysical questions. They are philisophical arguments based on what we can learn from physical science but they are not part of physical science.

jjg, I do not agree. The existence of the physical universe is not a metaphysical question. It is quite obvious that materials/the universe exist, unless you employ some dubious and/or contradictory logical proofs to the contrary.

With that being said. Yes, the questions of whether "God exists/is responsible for the material world" do seem to be a metaphysical question. This would also imply that the opposite side or atheism is also determined through metaphysics. An agnostic is basically saying; "I do not trust any knowledge based entirely and stringently on metaphysics."

Caine, that's all I simply said is that God or atheism are metaphysical questions.

I never said the existence of the universe does not fall into physics.

aharvey

December 16th, 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by jjjg

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

This site gives extensive understanding of radiometric dating.

I've posted links to this site a few times here, hoping that, coming from a serious Christian folks here might be more inclined to read it. Alas, the comments here suggest that such is not the case!

jjjg

December 16th, 2004, 11:17 AM

Hard to give up old prejudices.

Lighthouse

December 16th, 2004, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by aharvey

Lighthouse, you mistyped "No I don't, but it doesn't matter because the Truth has been revealed to me."

Come on, admit it. For one thing, what do you even mean by "empirically proven"?
Empirically proven means proven physically, does it not? A proof that you would accept...

Or "proven," for that matter?
It was proven to me, by means other than physical. I accept that, because it was proven. End of story.

Surely you know that "proof" is the domain of mathematics, not science. And since you are no doubt following the creationist's misuse of the term "evolution" to mean something like "protocell to human," you know that it would be theoretically impossible to "empirically prove" something like that anyway.
Do what? I beleive in modification of species, to their surroundings: i.e., adaptation.

Can evolution, the idea that all that exists shares a common ancestor, be proven, at all? That is what evolution believes isn't it? I know that it does not teach that we evolved from apes, but it teaches that we have a common ancestor with them, doesn't it?

And that's fine, you are more than welcome to your beliefs, but please don't try to bring them into a science class unless you're going to have the science to back them up!
If it can't be proven, then why should it be taught is if it is true, in a science class? If they are going to teach evolution, why not creationism? They are both considered to be possible by various scientists. And then there are those who believe them both to be nothing more than theories. So why not teach them both? Why not teach the various creationism beliefs. Judaism and Christianity are not the only systems of beleif to believe in creationism.

Lighthouse

December 16th, 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Stratnerd

lighthouse,

Evolution can be emperically proven in the sense we can show in a lab that descent with modification occurs.
And this I believe. But it can not be proven that humans share an ancestor with apes. Or that all that exists shares a common ancestor.

If you are talking about the historical aspects of evolution then emperical evidence is impossible (as is any other historical study) but you can generate testable hypotheses.
Exactly.

Stratnerd

December 16th, 2004, 11:43 AM

lighthouse,

And this I believe. But it can not be proven that humans share an ancestor with apes. Or that all that exists shares a common ancestor. this is a historical question and is beyond "proof" but you can falsify this hypothesis, which is what I was asking for from the beginning.

Exactly. If you agree then why we're you asking for emperical proof????????

so we're all agreed that creation and evolution (in the sense of explaining diversity) are beyond "proof" and we must rely inference and falsification and/or a competing hypotheses framework. great! so I'll ask again, do any data falsify evolution?

Lighthouse

December 16th, 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Stratnerd

lighthouse,

this is a historical question and is beyond "proof" but you can falsify this hypothesis, which is what I was asking for from the beginning.

If you agree then why we're you asking for emperical proof????????

so we're all agreed that creation and evolution (in the sense of explaining diversity) are beyond "proof" and we must rely inference and falsification and/or a competing hypotheses framework. great! so I'll ask again, do any data falsify evolution?
Evolution which is physical, by defenition, can not be proven physically. It can't be proven at all. It hasn't been proven to you, yet you believe it.:doh:

What sense does that make?!

P.S.
I wasn't actually asking for proof.

Stratnerd

December 16th, 2004, 11:56 AM

Evolution which is physical, by defenition, can not be proven physically. It can't be proven at all. It hasn't been proven to you, yet you believe it. What sense does that make?! I "believe" it because evolution explains diversity, distributions, relationships (among organisms) much better than any other explanation.

NO HISTORICAL EXPLANATION CAN BE PROVEN! So what we believe happened must be based on inference (if you're into that) or a religious text (if you're into that). But it's obvious that the two don't jive and I'll take inference over religious dogma.

Jukia

December 16th, 2004, 01:57 PM

Are stratnerd and lighthouse in the same conversation. Strat is looking for falsification and light is looking for proof. Seems like apples and oranges to me.

Caine

December 16th, 2004, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by jjjg

Caine, that's all I simply said is that God or atheism are metaphysical questions.

I never said the existence of the universe does not fall into physics.

I think you are confusing ideas here. Given the question; "Is/Are there (a) God(s)".

Naturalism is not an answer to a metaphysical question. Because we know that the physical universe exists. And it makes no comment on this question because it does not deal with the metaphysical.

Aetheism answers the metaphysical question in the negative by saying no evidence for is evidence against a non-material world.

Theism answers the metaphysical question with a variety of different referrences to the affirmative.

Agnosticism postpones any judgement on this issue until a later date.

You seem to be wanting to use naturalism and aetheism as synonyms, when they are not. As well as clumping agnosticism into this already muddied mentation.

I am a theist because I want to believe that there is something else other than the physical. I do not fool myself by answering this metaphysical question with anything other than my own desire. And I do not expect all other people to have this desire. Nor am I offended or frustrated when I come in contact with those who do not have this desire.

jjjg

December 16th, 2004, 05:31 PM

Actually naturalism is a metaphysical argument that can be for or against God and for or against dualism but it does ask the question is there one substance matter or mind and matter in the universe.

Lighthouse

December 17th, 2004, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Stratnerd

I "believe" it because evolution explains diversity, distributions, relationships (among organisms) much better than any other explanation.

NO HISTORICAL EXPLANATION CAN BE PROVEN! So what we believe happened must be based on inference (if you're into that) or a religious text (if you're into that). But it's obvious that the two don't jive and I'll take inference over religious dogma.
You don't think religious dogma is inference? Then what is it? I, of course, believe it to be true. And that is due to its being proven to me. Evolution has not been proven, only inferred. And, no matter how hard they look they still haven't found the "missing link."

Jukia-
I'm not looking for proof. I know it can't be proven. And never will be. In fact, I know it will be falsified, once and for all, when the Lord returns in glory.

aharvey

December 17th, 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Jukia

Are stratnerd and lighthouse in the same conversation. Strat is looking for falsification and light is looking for proof. Seems like apples and oranges to me.

Although it's usually not very productive, sometimes I get interesting insights when I poke around other threads. For example, let me just copy and paste in here something from a thread involving LH in the General Theology forum:

"
Originally posted by lighthouse

You moron!

I can't prove it to you. Actually, I can't prove it to anyone. But not because it can't be proven. I can't prove it, because it is not mine to prove.

I believe it because it has been proven to me. And it was proven by God, Himself. Because I sought Him out.

Xior,

Read the above post very carefully. Lighthouse is telling you flat out that the proof you seek cannot be provided by the people from whom you demand it. The supernatural realm does not, by definition, have to play by the same rules as the natural realm. In the supernatural realm there is no equivalent of a mathematical proof that can be laid out for all to see. God's existence can only be proven by God Himself, and only on an individual basis. So you have no choice but to take Lighthouse's word that God has proven Himself to Lighthouse. You are of course free to suspect that Lighthouse may be overstating his case, misinterpreting a drug interaction effect, or whatever, and Lighthouse would have no way of disproving that either!

Ironically, there is no strict contradiction with the very same Lighthouse turning around and demanding "proof" of evolution, and refusing to accept the reality of evolution until someone "proves" it to him. "Proof" regarding the supernatural is completely different from "proof" regarding the natural. With respect to evolution, Lighthouse expects something completely different from what y'all are arguing about here. It's mostly just unfortunate word choice (i.e., using the same word to mean two completely different things), but it is yet another illustration of why scientists can make no assumptions about the supernatural when investigating the natural world."

Unfortunately, in this thread Lighthouse seems to be confusing himself by equating the two versions of "proof." Now that's ironic! And he, like Nineveh and so many others here, seems impervious to the notion that "proof" is in the purview of mathematics, not science.

Caine

December 17th, 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by jjjg

Actually naturalism is a metaphysical argument that can be for or against God and for or against dualism but it does ask the question is there one substance matter or mind and matter in the universe.

The way you phrased your question is problematic. Asking Is their only matter or is their mind and matter in the universe?" is misleading. Because both atheists and spiritualists agree that there is both. Wouldn't a better qusetion be; "Can/Does mind exist anywhere in the universe independant of matter/energy?" And I will say again, that currently science cannot answer this question.

I also agree that naturalism can be used as an argument for or against God. But this need not be the case. In fact, I find using naturalism as evidence against God to be as problematic as using naturalism as evidence for God. True (material) science should be agnostic. This is the most objective position. I am as distrustful of arguments that use naturalism to disprove God as I am of those that use naturalism to prove God.

Stratnerd

December 17th, 2004, 07:48 PM

You don't think religious dogma is inference? Then what is it?

I don't know what it is.

Inference: Earth is ~ 6 Gya based on radiometric dating. This can change based on new data.
Bible: Earth is 6000 based on text. This cannot change.

And that is due to its being proven to me.

They've proved Genesis to be true? When?

And, no matter how hard they look they still haven't found the "missing link." There's no "THE" missing link.. there are lots of them. To claim the claim there's isn't is either based on deception or ignorance.

Frank Ernest

December 19th, 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Stratnerd

Inference: Earth is ~ 6 Gya based on radiometric dating. This can change based on new data.
Bible: Earth is 6000 based on text. This cannot change.

Nope. Nowhere in the Bible can one show that the earth is 6,000 years old.

There's no "THE" missing link.. there are lots of them. To claim the claim there's isn't is either based on deception or ignorance.

That's what your claims would be based on. :kookoo:

Stratnerd

December 19th, 2004, 02:24 PM

Nope. Nowhere in the Bible can one show that the earth is 6,000 years old. so that number was pulled out of the air or was it estimated from geneology, etc? that's a rhetorical statement of course because we know where that # comes from and it is geneology and, no, it can't and won't ever change so it isn't inference.

That's what your claims would be based on. please post content and not just these simple statements that are a waste of everyone's time. Evolution statements about missing links are not based on deception. There were a few hoaxes perpetrated by non-scientists for profit and these were ALL uncovered by evolutionary biologists not creationists. "Missing links" are found alive and in the fossil record. Again, to claim they don't exist is ignorance or deception or both.

jjjg

December 19th, 2004, 03:10 PM

Caine, that is probably a better way to word the question.

Lighthouse

December 19th, 2004, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Stratnerd

I don't know what it is.
Judeo-Christian Creationism is based on the Biblical text. But, to those who don't believe it, it is inference, is it not?

Inference: Earth is ~ 6 Gya based on radiometric dating. This can change based on new data.
Bible: Earth is 6000 based on text. This cannot change.
What text? You said, in your response to Frank, that it was based on geneaology. But how do we know enough details of geneaology to make that guess? And why does the things earth is made from being 6 Gya [whatever that means] mean that the Earth is the same? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just asking a question.

They've proved Genesis to be true? When?
When did I say, "they?" I never said who proved it to me. Not in here, anyway.

There's no "THE" missing link.. there are lots of them. To claim the claim there's isn't is either based on deception or ignorance.
Where are they? Where are the missing links?

Frank Ernest

December 20th, 2004, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Stratnerd

so that number was pulled out of the air or was it estimated from geneology, etc? that's a rhetorical statement of course because we know where that # comes from and it is geneology and, no, it can't and won't ever change so it isn't inference.

:cow:

please post content and not just these simple statements that are a waste of everyone's time. Evolution statements about missing links are not based on deception. There were a few hoaxes perpetrated by non-scientists for profit and these were ALL uncovered by evolutionary biologists not creationists. "Missing links" are found alive and in the fossil record. Again, to claim they don't exist is ignorance or deception or both.

Again, that's what your claims are based upon.

Stratnerd

December 20th, 2004, 08:34 AM

Judeo-Christian Creationism is based on the Biblical text. But, to those who don't believe it, it is inference, is it not?
Nope, it's still the text.

What text? You said, in your response to Frank, that it was based on geneaology. But how do we know enough details of geneaology to make that guess? Ask the theologian Ussher that did the calculations based on geneologies presented in Genesis and the following chapters.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/archbishop.asp

And why does the things earth is made from being 6 Gya [whatever that means] mean that the Earth is the same? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just asking a question. G= giga for a billion and ya = years ago. Does it make sense that the rocks would be billions and the earth which is partly the rocks be 6000? Sure, it could be anything but I'd prefer to stick to things that make the most sense.

When did I say, "they?" I never said who proved it to me. Not in here, anyway. so no answer? OK, what proved Genesis to be true. I know you know what I'm saying so instead of avoiding the question just answer it, please.

Where are they? Where are the missing links?

Instead of going through all the examples why don't you pick up an evolution textbook?